Opinion
August 7, 1995
Appeal from the Family Court, Kings County (Schechter, J.).
Ordered that the dispositional order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The determination by the Family Court that the appellant father had sexually abused his children is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (see, Family Ct Act § 1046 [b]; Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 117). The children's out of court statements to several psychologists and social workers were sufficiently corroborated by, inter alia, the daughter's use of dolls to reenact the sexual abuse incident (see, Matter of Racielli C., 215 A.D.2d 477; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v. Edyth W., 210 A.D.2d 328; see also, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Steven K., 176 A.D.2d 326, 328). Additionally, the appellant failed to come forward with satisfactory evidence to rebut the petitioner's case (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Elena A., 194 A.D.2d 608). Therefore, where, as here, the hearing court was confronted primarily with issues of credibility, its factual findings must be accorded great weight (see, Matter of New York City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Elena A., supra, at 609). On this record, we find no basis upon which to disturb the court's resolution of this issue.
The expiration of the placement of the children with the petitioner and the return of the children to their mother's custody has rendered the appellant's remaining contentions with respect to the dispositional order academic. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.